DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 9-17 and 21-31 are pending and examined herein per Applicant’s 06/01/2026 election. Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are canceled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 9-17) in the reply filed on 06/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/20/2025 and 08/31/2026 was in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 108 see [33]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-17 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes) without practical application or significantly more when the elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Step 1: Is the claimed invention to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, the claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject. Claims 9-17 and 21 are to a method (process) and claims 22-31 are to a system (machine).
Step 2A, prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the claims are found to recite an abstract idea. Specifically, the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
Where certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
Where mental processes relates to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 (as a representative claim) recites the following, where the limitations found to contain elements of the abstract idea are in bold italics:
9. (Original) A method for maintaining electric vehicle charging station operation during network communication outages using an edge computing system, comprising:
detecting, at an edge computing device located on-site at a charging station location, an interruption in network communication between the edge computing device and a cloud computing system;
accessing, by the edge computing device, predefined communication outage policies stored locally in a data store at the edge computing device, wherein the accessing is in response to detecting the interruption;
controlling, by the edge computing device, operation of a charging station during the interruption based on instructions included in the predefined communication outage policies, wherein the controlling comprises making determinations on at least one of:
handling new electric vehicle charging session requests received during the interruption;
adapting or stopping existing active electric vehicle charging sessions during the interruption;
processing payments for electric vehicle charging sessions;
prioritizing between multiple electric vehicle charging sessions; or
logging charging station usage data and diagnostic information at the edge computing device;
detecting, at the edge computing device, restoration of the interrupted network communication; and
resynchronizing electric vehicle charging data between the edge computing device and the cloud computing system.
The claims are directed the operation of electric vehicle charging session, which is found to fall within the abstract categories of both certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Where how the system controls the operation of the charging station is made to a high level and when read in light of the specification “Actual charging is activated once the driver physically connects their electric vehicle” (Spec. [41]) and “the edge session manager 238 may run optimization algorithms to distribute available electrical capacity across charging stations 112 in line with site policies. For example, charging rates for each vehicle may be dynamically adapted to meet changing constraints like renewable energy availability or to prioritize based on driver needs” (Spec. [44]). And finally, “edge environments that enable drivers to remotely initiate, claim, and manage EV charging sessions” (Spec. [88]).
The claimed invention is found to be a mental process performed on a computer; where the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. Further as recited the claims are a set of instructions to be carried out by a driver (human) when read in light of the specification; therefore the claims are found to be certain methods of organizing human activity - certain activity between a person and a computer.
Step 2A, prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claimed invention does not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Where a practical application is described as integrating the abstract idea by applying it, relying on it, or using the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on it such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize it, see October 2019: Subject Matter Eligibility at p. 11.
The identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional limitations see non-bold-italicized elements above. The detecting elements are determined to be steps of data gathering – insignificant extra-solution activity. Where 2106.05(g) MPEP states, “term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent. An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”
The Office finds that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception; or only generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea?
No, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and as part of the ordered combination. The computing environment is described in a generic high-level manner, see at least figs. 1 and 2.
Where 2106.05(d)(I)(2) of the MPEP states, “A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, this does not mean that a prior art search is necessary to resolve this inquiry. Instead, examiners should rely on what the courts have recognized, or those in the art would recognize, as elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the relevant field when making the required determination. For example, in many instances, the specification of the application may indicate that additional elements are well-known or conventional. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1317; 120 USPQ2d at 1359 ("The written description is particularly useful in determining what is well-known or conventional"); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1418 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (relying on specification’s description of additional elements as "well-known", "common" and "conventional"); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as "either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.").”
These limitations do NOT offer an improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, these additional limitations when considered individually or in combination do not provide an inventive concept that can transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
The other independent claims recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasoning given above.
The dependent claims do not further limit the claimed invention in such a way as to direct the claimed invention to statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou et al (2022/0024338 A1).
Claims 9 and 22
Zhou teaches a method for maintaining electric vehicle charging station operation during network communication outages using an edge computing system (Zhou abstract “an electric vehicle charging scheduling method, apparatus and system based on cloud-edge collaboration, a storage medium and an electronic device”), comprising:
detecting, at an edge computing device located on-site at a charging station location, an interruption in network communication between the edge computing device and a cloud computing system (Zhou [63] “a root mean square error and an average absolute percentage error are used to evaluate the prediction result” where the error is the equivalent of the claimed interruption);
accessing, by the edge computing device, predefined communication outage policies stored locally in a data store at the edge computing device, wherein the accessing is in response to detecting the interruption (Zhou [63] “prediction error is lower than a predetermined error requirement, the current deep learning model is used to predict basic load of the regional power grid; or otherwise, parameters of the current deep learning model are optimized” where the parameters are the equivalent of the claimed policies and [90] “ charging data is uploaded to a charging optimization scheduling model pre-trained by a cloud platform for obtaining an electric vehicle charging scheduling strategy, so that powerful computing abilities of the cloud platform and advantages of rapid response of the edge computing unit are fully utilized, the problem of network congestion is avoided”);
controlling, by the edge computing device, operation of a charging station during the interruption based on instructions included in the predefined communication outage policies (Zhou [23] “issue a scheduling instruction to each charging station according to the scheduling strategy, to realize orderly charging of electric vehicles in the entire charging region”), wherein the controlling comprises making determinations on at least one of:
handling new electric vehicle charging session requests received during the interruption (Zhou [8] “edge computing unit is configured to receive a charging request sent by an electric vehicle” where claim made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art);
adapting or stopping existing active electric vehicle charging sessions during the interruption (Zhou where claim made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art);
processing payments for electric vehicle charging sessions (Zhou where claim made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art);
prioritizing between multiple electric vehicle charging sessions (Zhou where claim made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art); or
logging charging station usage data and diagnostic information at the edge computing device (Zhou [60] “charging data collected by the cloud platform is an integration of information uploaded by all edge computing units” where claim made in the alternative only one element needs to be found in the art);
detecting, at the edge computing device, restoration of the interrupted network communication (Zhou [63] “current deep learning model is used to predict basic load of the regional power grid; or otherwise, parameters of the current deep learning model are optimized”); and
resynchronizing electric vehicle charging data between the edge computing device and the cloud computing system (Zhou [59] “start (charging start time determined after considering a time when the electric vehicle needs to wait at the charging station)”).
Zhou teaches a system of claim 22 a processing system, (Zhou abstract “an electric vehicle charging scheduling method, apparatus and system based on cloud-edge collaboration, a storage medium and an electronic device”) comprising:
one or more memories (Zhou [29-31] “An electronic device includes . . . a memory”); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to cause the processing system to (Zhou [32] “one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored on the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, and each program is used for executing the above electric vehicle charging scheduling method”)
Where the remaining limitations are substantially similar to those rejected above with respect to claim 9 and are thus rejected based on the same reasoning given above.
*** NO ART REJECTION HAS BEEN APPLIED TO THE DEPENDENT CLAIMS ***
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang et al (US 2025/0249781 A1) teaches the system keeps users updated on the charging station's status, including the availability of charging points and any maintenance or outage issues. Smart charging management optimizes resource use, prioritizing sessions based on user needs, battery health, and station capacity, thus reducing wait times and improving overall efficiency.
Gaither et al (US 2025/0313119 A1) teaches the system can predict the optimal time(s) to switch the home into “island mode” without any electricity interruption to the location. This prediction may be based on various factors including grid stability, weather conditions, current electricity demand, forecasts, scheduled maintenance, historical energy usage of the location and/or of the grid, etc. In some embodiments, the system may predict an optimal/best time for a connected vehicle to leave for extra electricity (if needed) and manage the arrival of other electric vehicles to the location to provide supplementary electricity. This feature implies a network of vehicles that can be coordinated to supply electricity, potentially creating a more robust and flexible electricity-sharing ecosystem. The system also has the potential for widespread application in residential electricity management, especially in regions prone to frequent power outages or areas looking to optimize electricity consumption and reduce reliance on the main grid.
Crist et al (US 2025/0381876 A1) teaches the system can submit a prompt to the LLM module, call a function to reset the target charger in response to an output of the LLM module, transmit the result of the function call to the LLM module, and transmit a second output of the LLM module to the front-end application. In this example, the system may respond to the user via the front-end module with the message “Thank you for reporting this issue; I've successfully reset the charger. Please try to initiate your charging session again. Let me know if the issue persists, and I can provide further assistance.” Thus, the system can initiate troubleshooting actions without human intervention, thereby improving the charging experience for users and the rate of successful paid charges for charging network operators.
Solomon et al (US 2021/0036522 A1) teaches The charging session authorization requests are transmitted to the electric vehicle charging station network server while the communication connection between the networked electric vehicle charging station and the electric vehicle charging station network server is functioning correctly.
Kale et al (US 2024/0343151 A1) teaches communication module extracts a vehicle charging communication session parameter from the EVSE charging station during a communication session. The EV validates the vehicle charging communication session parameter with a default charging parameter, uses a relaxed charging parameter for a restarted EV charging session when a failure of the communication session during the EV charging session occurs based on an adaptation of the vehicle charging communication session parameter and generates a deviation parameter when a communication session of the restarted EV charging session is successful.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FOLASHADE ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 12:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FOLASHADE ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623
Prosecution Insights